This guy seems very confused. He emails Bloglines and tells them to remove his site's content (which it aggregates via his RSS feed). The reasoning is that he wants his content viewed on his page where his contact information and other branding is visible.
Okay.
Then, he tells people that were reading his content via Bloglines to... wait, here is the quote.
For the 190 of you who subscribe to this site through Bloglines, I apologize for any inconvenience, but I think that you will still find my site easily accessible, here. If anyone desires the convenience of being notified only when this blog (or most any blog) is updated, then I recommend subscribing to one of the many RSS programs available.
Huh?
Update:
I want to clarify my point. I find nothing wrong with a person who wants to limit his content to being on his site where all of his branding exists. What I found confusing is that he doesn't want Bloglines to reproduce his content, but he is fine with other aggregators doing so? What makes Bloglines bad but NetNewsWire just peachy?
Update 2:
Okay, now I want to clarify my previous update. When I said, "I find nothing wrong with a person who wants to limit his content to being on his sight," well, that is not true. I can think of a "few" things wrong with that. But, that's not a point I want to bring to contention. Getting into that is usually pointless.
Comments
A friend has decided that his content should not be used for commercial purposes, and as such, has limited various aggregators that potentially show ads next to his content (e.g. Yahoo!). I've tried to mention that there are LOTS more sites out there that will use his content specifically as commercial content (e.g. porn spider sites) but that usually gets ignored.
My belief is that you either syndicate your content for public consumption, or you don't.
jr:
That's pretty much my take on it, too.